As Heard on The Stephanie Miller Show

Thursday, May 29, 2008

It was almost ineveitable that almost the moment Scott McClellan's book bashing the Bush administration came out, suddenly everyone's foot swiches shoes. Liberals who called him a lying sack of crap are now embracing him, while those neocons who held him close to thier bosoms can't find a bus big enough to run over this Texas slice of lard.

So here we go, with the Talking Point Parade. First, John Gibson, who for some reason has it in for KO and Dr. M., but that's another story altogether.

(and PS....she is NOT dr, Stranelove, Wheels. Racheal is much cuter)

Here's Mary Matilin, looking like she had a Ritalin smoothie this morning....but then again YOU'D have one too if you had to wake up to what she wakse up to every morning....James Carvell...horny. Ewwwwwwwwwww!

Here's Billo and some Dick....

Here Ari Fleisher with Katie claiming some "editing" was done with the book. Got news for you Ari...they do that to all books!

Oh and David Gregory disagrees that the MSM was not doing thier job. Your right, but remember, the CITIZEN was not doing HIS/HER job....actually looking for the facts. yes, we, the supposedly informed were too busy looking up Britney's twat...

Finally, I leave you with this....

“The hypocrite who always plays one and the same part ceases at last to be a hypocrite”-Nietzche

“How inexpressible is the meanness of being a hypocrite! how horrible is it to be a mischievous and malignant hypocrite.”-Voltaire

“The only vice that cannot be forgiven is hypocrisy. The repentance of a hypocrite is itself hypocrisy."-William Hazlett

Thursday, May 22, 2008

A state appellate court has ruled that child welfare officials had no right to seize more than 400 children living at a polygamist sect's ranch.

The Third Court of Appeals in Austin ruled that the grounds for removing the children were "legally and factually insufficient" under Texas law. They did not immediately order the return of the children.

Child welfare officials removed the children on the grounds that the sect pushed underage girls into marriage and sex and trained boys to become future perpetrators.

The appellate court ruled the chaotic hearing held last month did not demonstrate the children were in any immediate danger, the only measure of taking children from their homes without court proceedings.

Monday, May 19, 2008

The court, in a 7-2 decision, brushed aside concerns that the law couldapply to mainstream movies that depict adolescent sex, classic literature orinnocent e-mails that describe pictures of grandchildren.

The ruling upheld part of a 2003 law that also prohibits possession ofchild porn. It replaced an earlier law against child pornography that the courtstruck down as unconstitutional.

The law sets a five-year mandatory prison term for promoting, orpandering, child porn. It does not require that someone actually possess childpornography.

STOP RIGHT THERE!!!!!

Let me see if I get this straight. I can be put in jail, not for having a picture that might not be up to "community standards," but for "promoting" or "pandering" "kiddie porn?"

Define promoting.

Yeah, I know...if I stand in the public square and say "Kiddie stuff for sale!," that is promoting. But if I say that I really don't care what you watch in the privacy of your own home, is that promoting on a de facto basis?

Define pandering.

Webster defines as such:

1. To act as a go-between or liaison in sexual intrigues; function as a procurer.2. To cater to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit their weaknesses

So I'm in trouble if I get it....or to cater to your lower tastes. Like, say writing fan fiction that places a certain 17-year-old cheerleader in a sexual situation with her 26 year old nemesis/lover, based on two characters of a TV show.

And who will define those to words as relating to, say, you?

Opponents have said the law could apply to movies like "Traffic" or "Titanic"that depict adolescent sex.

The decision did not throw out that concern, the justices merely said, yeah, you can have kiddie porm, as long as the actors are Daniel Radcliffe amnd Abigail Breslin, and the movie is put out by MGM. Convieneint.

But Justice Antonin Scalia, in his opinion for the court, said the law doesnot cover movie sex. There is no "possibility that virtual child pornography orsex between youthful-looking adult actors might be covered by the term'simulated sexual intercourse,'" Scalia said.Likewise, Scalia said, FirstAmendment protections do not apply to "offers to provide or requests to obtainchild pornography."

Justice David Souter, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, dissented.Souter said promotion of images that are not real children engaging inpornography still could be the basis for prosecution under the law. Possessionof those images, on the other hand, may not be prosecuted, Souter said.

"I believe that maintaining the First Amendment protection of expressionwe have previously held to cover fake child pornography requires a limit to thelaw's criminalization of pandering proposals," Souter said.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This materialmay not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Liberty is taken away, not by the audacious, in-your-face move, but by the subtle foot-in-the-door, and the promise that I will go no further. A promise that is, almost always a lie.

What happened today is a prime example.

Forget the outdated, outmoded fear-thought pattern behind this. What the Supreme Court said, in no uncertain terms, is the speech is free, provided said speech is sanctioned by society and does not ruffle any feathers or challenge and any outmoded notions, like, say, the sexuality of humans must start after a certain age.....say 34.

By saying you could not "promote" certain things, but allowing similar things to be promoted, this may open up a Pandora's box where thought, itself, can be legislated. If it has not been already.

This is how the Bush Bench is operating. remember, the law was rightly discarded by the 2003 Supremes, but that was before Cheney and Company started gutting the place and installed their moral minions. Free speech and the rest of the constitution be damned, we will put this country on what we believe is a moral course whether the peons like it or not.

Among a lot of other things I can't say right now, this foot-in-the-door worries me. And because I can't say a lot, it speaks volumes about how much we have already lost.

Teen charged in sex assault on boy, 5Charlotte Observer, NC -7 minutes agoA 13-year-old Iredell County youth was charged Monday with seven felonies and four misdemeanors after an investigation into the sexual assault of a ...

Thornton Cleveleys man jailed following teen sexThis Is Lancashire, UK -May 16, 2008An "immature" man in his 20s unable to come to terms with impending fatherhood ended up having casual sex with a teenage girl. It cost Terance Parker his ...

Then there's......

Teacher's Sex-With-Student Trial PostponedLocal6.com, FL -6 hours agoThe trial of a former Jackson Middle School teacher accused of having a sexual relationship with a student has been postponed until the fall. ...

Teacher's Sex-With-Student Trial PostponedLocal6.com, FL -6 hours agoThe trial of a former Jackson Middle School teacher accused of having a sexual relationship with a student has been postponed until the fall. ...

Saturday, May 17, 2008

Pity PartyMay 16, 2008; Page A11

Big picture, May 2008:

The Democrats aren't the ones falling apart, the Republicans are. The Democrats can see daylight ahead. For all their fractious fighting, they're finally resolving their central drama. Hillary Clinton will leave, and Barack Obama will deliver a stirring acceptance speech. Then hand-to-hand in the general, where they see their guy triumphing. You see it when you talk to them: They're busy being born.

Terry Shoffner

Clarke Reed

The Republicans? Busy dying. The brightest of them see no immediate light. They're frozen, not like a deer in the headlights but a deer in the darkness, his ears stiff at the sound. Crunch. Twig. Hunting party.

The headline Wednesday on Drudge, from Politico, said, "Republicans Stunned by Loss in Mississippi." It was about the eight-point drubbing the Democrat gave the Republican in the special House election. My first thought was: You have to be stupid to be stunned by that. Second thought: Most party leaders in Washington are stupid – detached, played out, stuck in the wisdom they learned when they were coming up, in '78 or '82 or '94. Whatever they learned then, they think pertains now. In politics especially, the first lesson sticks. For Richard Nixon, everything came back to Alger Hiss.

They are also – Hill leaders, lobbyists, party speakers – successful, well-connected, busy and rich. They never guessed, back in '86, how government would pay off! They didn't know they'd stay! They came to make a difference and wound up with their butts in the butter. But affluence detaches, and in time skews thinking. It gives you the illusion you're safe, and that everyone else is. A party can lose its gut this way.

Many are ambivalent, deep inside, about the decisions made the past seven years in the White House. But they've publicly supported it so long they think they . . . support it. They get confused. Late at night they toss and turn in the antique mahogany sleigh bed in the carpeted house in McLean and try to remember what it is they really do think, and what those thoughts imply.

And those are the bright ones. The rest are in Perpetual 1980: We have the country, the troops will rally in the fall.

"This was a real wakeup call for us," someone named Robert M. Duncan, who is chairman of the Republican National Committee, told the New York Times. This was after Mississippi. "We can't let the Democrats take our issues." And those issues would be? "We can't let them pretend to be conservatives," he continued. Why not? Republicans pretend to be conservative every day.

The Bush White House, faced with the series of losses from 2005 through '08, has long claimed the problem is Republicans on the Hill and running for office. They have scandals, bad personalities, don't stand for anything. That's why Republicans are losing: because they're losers.

All true enough!

But this week a House Republican said publicly what many say privately, that there is another truth. "Members and pundits . . . fail to understand the deep seated antipathy toward the president, the war, gas prices, the economy, foreclosures," said Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia in a 20-page memo to House GOP leaders.

The party, Mr. Davis told me, is "an airplane flying right into a mountain." Analyses of its predicament reflect an "investment in the Bush presidency," but "the public has just moved so far past that." "Our leaders go up to the second floor of the White House and they get a case of White House-itis." Mr. Bush has left the party at a disadvantage in terms of communications: "He can't articulate. The only asset we have now is the big microphone, and he swallowed it." The party, said Mr. Davis, must admit its predicament, act independently of the White House, and force Democrats to define themselves. "They should have some ownership for what's going on. They control the budget. They pay no price. . . . Obama has all happy talk, but it's from 30,000 feet. Energy, immigration, what is he gonna do?"

* * *

Could the party pivot from the president? I spoke this week to Clarke Reed of Mississippi, one of the great architects of resurgent Republicanism in the South. When he started out, in the 1950s, there were no Republicans in his state. The solid south was solidly Democratic, and Sen. James O. Eastland was thumping the breast pocket of his suit, vowing that civil rights legislation would never leave it. "We're going to build a two-party system in the south," Mr. Reed said. He helped create "the illusion of Southern power" as a friend put it, with the creation of the Southern Republican Chairman's Association. "If you build it they will come." They did.

There are always "lots of excuses," Mr. Reed said of the special-election loss. Poor candidate, local factors. "Having said all that," he continued, "let's just face it: It's not a good time." He meant to be a Republican. "They brought Cheney in, and that was a mistake." He cited "a disenchantment with the generic Republican label, which we always thought was the Good Housekeeping seal."

What's behind it? "American people just won't take a long war. Just – name me a war, even in a pro-military state like this. It's overall disappointment. It's national. No leadership, adrift. Things haven't worked." The future lies in rebuilding locally, not being "distracted" by Washington.

Is the Republican solid South over?

"Yeah. Oh yeah." He said, "I eat lunch every day at Buck's Cafe. Obama's picture is all over the wall."

How to come back? "The basic old conservative principles haven't changed. We got distracted by Washington, we got distracted from having good county organizations."

Should the party attempt to break with Mr. Bush? Mr. Reed said he supports the president. And then he said, simply, "We're past that."

We're past that time.

Mr. Reed said he was "short-term pessimistic, long-term optimistic." He has seen a lot of history. "After Goldwater in '64 we said, 'Let's get practical.' So we got ol' Dick. We got through Watergate. Been through a lot. We've had success a long time."

Throughout the interview this was a Reed refrain: "We got through that." We got through Watergate and Vietnam and changes large and small.

He was holding high the flag, but his refrain implicitly compared the current moment to disaster.

What happens to the Republicans in 2008 will likely be dictated by what didn't happen in 2005, and '06, and '07. The moment when the party could have broken, on principle, with the administration – over the thinking behind and the carrying out of the war, over immigration, spending and the size of government – has passed. What two years ago would have been honorable and wise will now look craven. They're stuck.

Mr. Bush has squandered the hard-built paternity of 40 years. But so has the party, and so have its leaders. If they had pushed away for serious reasons, they could have separated the party's fortunes from the president's. This would have left a painfully broken party, but they wouldn't be left with a ruined "brand," as they all say, speaking the language of marketing. And they speak that language because they are marketers, not thinkers. Not serious about policy. Not serious about ideas. And not serious about leadership, only followership.

This is and will be the great challenge for John McCain: The Democratic argument, now being market tested by Obama Inc., that a McCain victory will yield nothing more or less than George Bush's third term.

That is going to be powerful, and it is going to get out the vote. And not for Republicans.

Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:36:02 PM PDT

Opponents of the recent California Supreme Court ruling to legalize same sex marriage in California present many arguments against this ruling. One of their most often repeated is that a handful of judges have overruled the wishes of the majority of the people. The majority of the people are often wrong.

On April 18, 1775, the majority of the people of the British colonies in North America opposed separation from Great Britain.

On April 19, 1775 colonists at Concord and Lexington fought with British troops in the first military action of the American Revolutionary War. Even after fighting began, many colonists continued to oppose independence.

On April 11, 1861, the majority of the people of the US opposed a possible war between the northern and southern states.

On April 12, 1861, Confederate troops opened fire on Fort Sumter.

On September 21, 1862, the majority of the people opposed emancipation of the slaves.

On September 22, 1862, Abraham Lincoln issued the first of two Emancipation Proclamations.

In 1919, the majority of the people opposed giving women the right to vote in the US.

On May 21, 1919, the US House passed the Nineteenth amendment; on June 4, 1919 the US Senate passed the Nineteenth amendment. During the summer of 1920, Tennessee became the last of the 36 states needed to ratify the amendment giving women the right to vote.

On December 6, 1941, the majority of the US opposed entry into WWII.

On December 7, 1941, the Empire of Japan attacked US forces at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.

On February 18, 1942, the majority of the US knew that Americans of Japanese decent were a danger to the war effort.

On February 19, 1942, President Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, allowing for internment.

On May 16, 1954, the majority knew that separate but equal educational opportunities for white and black students were perfectly OK.

On May 17, 1954, the US Supreme Court ruled the opposite in Brown v. Board of Education.

On June 11, 1967, the majority knew that it was wrong to let people of different races to marry.

On June 12, 1969, the US Supreme Court ruled the opposite in Loving v. Virginia.

History has proved over and over again that the majority can, and often are, wrong on any number of issues, for any number of reasons.

Sometimes it takes an elite leadership (Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, and Paine) to drag the majority kicking and screaming into the future. Sometimes it takes one brilliant and brave man (Lincoln). Sometimes it takes a shock to the system (Pearl Harbor). Sometimes it takes Congress, the President and the states (Emancipation). Sometimes it takes the courts.

Today in the US, the majority believe it is wrong for persons of the same sex to marry.

The Massachusetts and California Supreme Courts know the majority is wrong and have said so.

Thursday, May 15, 2008

It did not take long for the 'phobes to go bonkers over the California Supreme Court having a momentary spasm of common sense in dumping the ban on same-sex marriage.

They know that as California goes, so goes the nation. And the prude patrol has gone atomic over this already.

Take Blogger Glenn Sacks and how HE found out about the ruling:

Sometimes you find out a marriage is over when you come home and your house is empty except for a note from your soon-to-be former wife. Sometimes it happens after a fight. Sometimes it happens when you find out about an affair.

I found out my marriage will soon be over in a different way--the Campaign for Children and Families and the Alliance for Marriage Foundation told me.

According to the Campaign for Children and Families, today's California Supreme Court pro-gay marriage ruling "has destroyed the civil institution of marriage." The Alliance for Marriage Foundation says the decision has "struck down marriage." All because the ruling would allow the 2% of the population who are gay to marry. Read the full story of the catastrophe here.

Ignorant me, I thought that marriage was under greater threat from the fact that hundreds of thousands of innocent fathers have been booted out of their homes with little judicial oversight via restraining orders based on false domestic violence allegations. Or that courts allow children of divorce to be dragged half way across the country so mothers can exclude their fathers from their lives. Or that the abusive child support system often traps low income men in a hopeless spiral of debt. Or that family courts are allowing military parents to be permanently removed from their children's lives while they're overseas. I was wrong--it's gays being allowed to marry that is the real threat.

Why even have elections? - Just let judges create and make the laws.FYI - I wonder how Glenn Sacks would feel if this court imposed a conservative agenda by judicial fiat - like ban all abortion center, banned quotas, rounded up all the illegals, etc.2 posted on Thursday, May 15, 2008 12:50:21 PM by 2banana (My common ground with terrorists - they want to die for islam and we want to kill them)

Well, it wouldn't be “hysterics,” then. It would be "grave concern over the direction of our country."posted on Thursday, May 15, 2008 12:53:33 PM by Skooz (Any nation that would elect Hillary Clinton as its president has forfeited its right to exist.)

This is not about discrimination. They always had the right to marry, just like all the normal people in the country. Someone of the other sex, that is.Oh, they want to marry someone of the same sex? Sorry. That would be ridiculous.posted on Thursday, May 15, 2008 1:05:29 PM by Leftism is Mentally Deranged

Oh...there is more.

When Arnold said that he would respect the court's decision (as he always has), this came forth...

Recall, anyone?posted on Thursday, May 15, 2008 1:01:31 PM by ROP_RIP

AHNOLD IS A JOKE....married to a demonrat....he is one himself hiding behind a repub’s label is all....4 posted on Thursday, May 15, 2008 1:03:24 PM by tatsinfla

Old Schwarz a closet homo? Or is he just another California liberal?9 posted on Thursday, May 15, 2008 1:07:05 PM by TheBattman (LORD God, please give us a Christian Patriot with a backbone for President in 08, Amen.)

The polygamists in this country are also cheering; because if there is nothing special about marriage being between one man and one woman; then, what is so damn special about the number two?Not to mention pedophile and bestial lovers. If marriage changed definitions from "Two people of the opposite sex of consenting age..." to "Two people of consenting age...", then "Two", "consenting age", and "people" are all up for grabs.posted on Thursday, May 15, 2008 1:28:26 PM by dan1123 (If you want to find a person's true religion, ask them what makes them a "good person".)

Oh....still more...

Once again, we are making the wrong argument, and therefore will lose the war (even though we win all the battles).The WRONG here is the seizure of power from the People to legislate as they see fit.The issue of two men or two women pretending to be "married" is not what's at issue here. THAT issue was won with the voters of California, and re-arguing it here, under these circumstances, has NO CHANCE of changing the outcome.What needs to be put in front of the People now is NOT how we feel, or think they should feel, about homosexual "marriages" or other homosexual behavior.The People need to understand that this ruling is an illegitimate seizure of THEIR OWN POWER TO GOVERN THEMSELVES.This has the advantage, once that battle is won, of putting an end to these rulings once and for all. If, in ten years and after ten billion dollars, you are able to amend the California Constitution, they'll just be back in court with gay scoutmasters, or polygamy, or heaven knows what.Defeat the problem at it's source - end legislation from the bench. If you amend the Constitution to do THAT, there's a victory worth having.48 posted on Thursday, May 15, 2008 11:49:10 AM by Jim Noble (ride 'em like you stole 'em)

Anyone with a law degree know what this will mean for the rest of the country?Sames sex couples married in California will have same family status in all 50 states who do not have gay marriage. Much like your drive’s liscense be recognized in other states, so will your marriage license.44 posted on Thursday, May 15, 2008 11:25:07 AM by cornfedcowboy

Ahh, but THIS ONE takes the cake, the icing, and the frosting...

All radical muslims are hereby invited to bring their families to beautiful, sunny Keliforrnia. With the recent court ruling on homosexual “marriage,” the already far lower than required population replacement rate of 2.1 kids per white, native born family will now head even lower. (In case you hadn’t noticed, homosexual couples produce very few offsping.)If you can get to Mexico, don a sombrero, a serape and simply stroll across the unprotected “Bush” border at San Diego. Immediately apply for welfare and get down to the serious business of full time breeding.Then in 20 years — or less the way things are going out there — you can duke it out with the illegal Mexicans for dominance of the place, thus establishing a perfect springboard for whatever terrorist mischief you care to perpetrate on the rest of the land mass that used to be known as AMERICA.But by then, you’ll probably not even have to bother because, as we all know, as goes Keliforrnia, so goes the nation.We’re doomed.posted on Thursday, May 15, 2008 11:13:33 AM by Dick Bachert

Isn't it ironic that last statement was made by a true.........well, his name IS Dick!

SACRAMENTO—Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is vowing to uphold the California Supreme Court's ruling striking down a state ban on gay marriage.The Republican governor issued a brief statement shortly after the court announced its decision Thursday.The governor said, "I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling."He also reiterated his previously stated opposition to an anti-gay marriage initiative proposed for the November ballot. That initiative would write a ban on same-sex unions into California's constitution.Last month, Schwarzenegger told a gathering of gay Republicans that he would fight the initiative.The governor has twice vetoed legislation that sought to legalize gay marriage, saying the issue should be decided by voters or the courts.Schwarzenegger did not address the court's ruling in his address to a technology conference in Sacramento Thursday morning.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a much-anticipated ruling issued Thursday, the California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional.

Several gay and lesbian couples, along with the city of San Francisco and gay rights groups, sued to overturn state laws allowing only marriages between a man and a woman.

With the ruling, California becomes the second state to allow same-sex couples to legally wed. Massachusetts adopted the practice in 2004, and couples don't need to be state residents to wed there.

Vermont, New Jersey, New Hampshire and Connecticut permit civil unions, while California has a domestic-partner registration law. More than a dozen other states give gay couples some legal rights.

Seven other jurisdictions around the world have legalized same-sex marriage: Belgium, Netherlands, Spain, South Africa and the Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec.

San Francisco officials in 2004 allowed same-sex couples in the city to wed, prompting a flood of applicants crowding the city hall clerk's office. The first couple to wed then was 80-year-old Phyllis Lyon and 83-year-old Dorothy Martin, lovers for 50 years.

"We have a right just like anyone else to get married to the person we want to get married to," Lyon said at the time.

One issue before the justices was whether San Francisco's laws carried legal weight when the rest of the state banned same-sex marriages. Gay rights advocates argued the state was violating their civil rights by limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. The state law in question is the Defense of Marriage Act, Proposition 22.

Oral arguments in the case in March lasted more than three hours, a sign of the political and legal issues at stake. Six cases were consolidated.

Same-sex marriages that were nullified by the law remain nullified, CNN legal analyst Sunny Hostin said.

Groups saying they were promoting a pro-family agenda had vowed to fight a statewide law allowing same-sex marriage.

"The government should promote and encourage strong families," said Glen Lavy of the Alliance Defense Fund. "The voters realize that defining marriage as one man and one woman is important because the government should not, by design, deny a child both a mother and father."

An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is likely. The federal high court has never addressed the question of same-sex marriage.

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

From Rod Parsley's "Center for Moral Clarity." Don't cha just love the pretentiousness....

Anyway....

What Miley’s Come-Hither Picture Tells Us About Its TakersIt’s hard to avoid the image of 15-year-old Miley Cyrus these days – she andher character, Hannah Montana, are making the folks at Disney, and lots of otherpeople, bushel baskets of money. From television to films to radio to books tothe stickers your kids buy from coin-operated vending machines, her picture’severywhere. Since she’s a professing Christian, and sheprojects a wholesome image befitting the Disney name, her popularity should begood news for the Church.

Last week, however, a decidedly different picture of Miss Miley emerged,and it revealed more about the people behind the camera than the teenager infront of it.The June issue of Vanity Fair magazine, which went on sale thisweek, features an interview with Cyrus, accompanied by photos shot by theacclaimed Annie Liebowitz. You may have seen the shot that caused a nationalstir last week: it’s provocative and tasteless, but not explicit. If you didn’tsee it, don’t bother: your eye-gate doesn’t need the distraction.

If the subject were a 25-year-old singer promoting a new album or an30-year-old actress with a new movie arriving in theaters, we’d think nothingabout it. The problem, of course, is that Vanity Fair readers are being invitedto contemplate the allure of a 15-year-old whose every project and product istargeted toward grade-school girls! What happened? We suspect that amoralmagazine executives, sensing a “Lolita moment,” rushed an inappropriate pictureonline to give their newsstand sales a jolt. Our suspicion is that nobodyinvolved with the shoot – least of all the magazine and the superstarphotographer it hired – considered the implications of depicting an underagegirl, famous or otherwise, as a sexual plaything, because they simply didn’t seeanything wrong with it.

A recent episode of “Hannah Montana” put our heroine in a moral quandarybecause she didn’t like the smell of a perfume she had endorsed, but the peoplerunning photo shoot seemed to harbor no such qualms about burning aninappropriate image of Miss Miley into the minds of millions of consumers. Thepublication of this suggestive picture tells us that Vanity Fair executiveseither don’t know or don’t care about the wholesome, God-friendly image TeamMiley has created, or about the uncomfortable conversations it doubtlesslyspurred in homes with teen daughters across the nation. Instead, they chose topublish a photograph that glorifies under-age sex and the amoral world in whichit’s just another lifestyle choice we all have to tolerate.

Now usually, we take this opportunity to rake Brar Parsley over the coals on this...except on this case, he is, to a point, on the money.

I do believe that the folks at VF thought it would be cheeky to have America's Favorite Piece of Jailbait in that come-hither pose, complete with connect-the-dots goosebumps. But if you think this is a close to kiddie porn as mainstream will get, does anyone understand that there were two people on that set who could have vetoed any pose, any time. These people were on the set with Miley and her dad every moment of the shoot and could have stopped all this at anytime.

That would be..........MILEY CYRUS AND HER DAD, BILLY RAY.

But if you think that's bad, there is another picture, not that much talked about, but, IMHO, even more scandelous.

I'm talking about THIS Masterpiece:

Ahhhh, yes.....little Miley, lazing almost erotically in the strong arms of the hunk who just happens to be his daughter.

Apperently is was all ok with the Cyrueses, who sign off on all this.

Yep, you gotta love those "practicing Christians." Makes you wonder what they practice....

By Brian KnowltonPublished: May 12, 2008WASHINGTON: Senator Barack Obama is acting as if he already has won the Democratic presidential nomination, but Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is poised, ironically, to score two of her most lopsided primary victories and possibly enhance her political clout.Obama's travel plans in the next two weeks suggest a clear focus on the general election in November - he will visit Missouri, a general-election swing state, on Tuesday, then Michigan on Wednesday and Florida next week, both of them key to the hopes of Democrats in the fall.But the presidential primary season is not over yet, and polls show Clinton holding a huge edge Tuesday in West Virginia - leading by an average of 36 points, according to three voter surveys cited by the Real Clear Politics Web site. Polling also gives her a 30-point lead in Kentucky, which will vote May 20. She is also favored on June 1 in Puerto Rico, which votes in a primary but not the general election.

Although Obama is expected to win the three other remaining primaries - in Oregon, Montana and South Dakota, ending on June 3 - Clinton's upcoming show of strength should position her better for challenges to come. Those might include the matter of who Obama would choose to join him on the ticket; signals are mixed as to whether she might be interested. They might also make it easier for Clinton to end her candidacy unbowed and on an upbeat note.Even top Clinton advisers acknowledge that the New York senator faces daunting odds. Terry McAuliffe, her campaign chairman, said Sunday that it was "highly unlikely" Clinton could overcome Obama's lead in elected delegates.

With mounting pressure from fellow Democrats to end a divisive campaign, Clinton has begun shifting her attacks to Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee. She has pledged to support the Democratic nominee "no matter what happens."

On the other side, McCain and his surrogates have considerably sharpened their attacks on Obama, hinting at the outlines of a general-election strategy. The former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, an erstwhile McCain rival who now supports him, blasted the Illinois senator on Sunday as an untested man of scant experience.

"He has not accomplished anything during his life, in terms of legislation or leading an enterprise or making a business work or a city work or a state work," Romney said on CNN. "He really has very little experience, and the presidency of the United States is not an internship."

McCain planned Monday in Oregon to enlarge on his call for mandatory curbs on greenhouse gas emissions, a position closer to those of Obama and Clinton - and to many independent and centrist voters - than to the Republican mainstream or President George W. Bush.

As he plays a delicate game of positioning, McCain has laid out his views on the Iraq war, taxes and judicial nominations, all aimed at expanding his appeal among conservatives. But he received a sharp reminder Monday of the difficulty he may have in nailing down support from the right: Bob Barr, a conservative former Republican congressman from Georgia, announced plans to run for the Libertarian party's presidential nomination.

Barr, 59, helped lead the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, giving him national prominence, and in some circles, notoriety. But Barr left the Republican Party in 2006, disillusioned by what he said was its failure to restrain government growth and by what he considered affronts to civil liberties. He became a sharp critic of the Patriot Act, for example.

His candidacy could take some votes from McCain. And his criticisms of the party might add to pressure on McCain not to move too far toward the center.

In the Democratic race, Obama has effectively ceded West Virginia. He told a crowd Monday in Charleston - in his only visit to the state - that he expected Clinton to draw "many more" votes than he would get. West Virginia is one of the poorest, oldest, most white-dominated states, mirroring the composition of counties in Ohio, Indiana and Pennsylvania that Clinton carried handily.

But Obama emphasized themes meant to play well there: patriotism and love of country."My grandfather Stanley Dunham enlisted after Pearl Harbor and went on to march in Patton's army," he said. "My grandmother worked on a bomber assembly line while he was gone, and my mother was born at Fort Leavenworth."

Still, a poll in Kentucky suggested that Obama's race might hurt him there as he campaigns to be elected as the country's first black president. While more than half of respondents in a survey by the Herald-Leader, a newspaper in Lexington, Kentucky, said that his race was not a factor, 1 in 5 said it could hurt Obama's chances, and only 4 percent said it would help.

The newspaper also said that its poll raised doubts about whether Kentucky - which has backed the winning presidential candidate in every election since 1964 - would be a battleground state in the fall. The poll showed McCain leading Obama by 25 percentage points there and Clinton by 12. It had a 4 percent margin of error.

Friday, May 09, 2008

Many of you know that I love game shows, especially ones that are done right. When the Reg Grundy folks remade thier popular Sale of the Century in Austrailia (where SOTC is that country's American Idol) into a game called Temptation, I was amazed with the effort, and I could not wait until they found a way to bring it here.

Well they did. Unfortunatly, Fox put the show on that bargain basement they call MyNetworkTV. They found some soap star that d not have the skill of Aussie host Ed Phillips or the smootheness of American SOTC host Jim Perry.

The result was a disaster.

So I offer one complete episode to show you how it should have been done!

Now all of this falls into the catagory of "promoting the ho-mo-sex-shoo-wull ah-GEN-dah," calling for such horrid things as extra punishment for harming a person simply because of who on thinks they sleep with (many straights have been attacked because someone thought they were gay), the ability to make money and have a happy life, marriage....all of those terrible things. These so-do-mites want to be like us! And it is DISGUSTING......except when practiced by two buxom blonde women in a porno. And don't forget his ongowing war against the Marriott hotel chain for showing porn.......you know that truncated, no-insertion, no-wet climax psudo-porn that they offer in thier hotels, as well as a simple button allowing you to turn it off during your stay.

The real onscenity here is the $13 on has to shell out to see it.

But we digress.....

Which, in a sense, leads us to NoNeck's latest outrage: GAY KISSING ON DAYTIME TV! After several months of what passes as foreplay in daytime TV, lovers Luke and Noah finally smooched on April 24th, 2008 on that hoary old soap, As The World Turns.

And of course, like any good perv...errr...Christian, he gave us a clip to show how vile it is!

Now, as a card-carrying bisexual, I must give my expery opinion on this. I have seen open-mouth kissing. I have done it in the past. I hope to do it this weekend. But that was NOT open-mouth kissing! It was more of a peck and a snog. So much for that.

But Wildmon has to have a windmill to tilt. After getting wind of NoNeck's call to jam thier toll-free comment line, Proctor and Gamble, who in addition to soap-making, produces the relic known as ATWT, shut the number down.

Ahhhh, but you don't mess with the NoNeck:

Procter & Gamble heard from the g-ys, then changed itsrulesCompany changed procedure after allowing g-ys time tocallMay 6, 2008Following its support for the h-mos-xual agenda,Procter & Gamble established a toll-free number for people to register theiropinions for or against P&G’s promotion of the g-y agenda, including openmouth kissing between g-ys. It gave a toll-free number which was heavilypromoted on g-y Web sites for a week to give those favoring the promotion ofh-mos-xuality an opportunity to call. Monday, after AFA had put out the wordthat P&G wanted to hear from AFA supporters, P&G abruptly endedit.AFA is encouraging supporters to call P&G and ask the companywhy it is promoting the g-y lifestyle and why it quit using the toll-free numberto receive opinions only after AFA notified AFA supporters about it. We urge youto spend a few cents to register your complaint with P&G. Here is P&G’scorporate number to call: 513-983-1100. (Please get others to call P&G atthis number!)P&G has added h-mos-xual lovers to its soap opera “As theWorld Turns.” The soap opera now includes scenes of h-mos-xuals with passionateopen mouth kissing. The motive behind P&G’s push is to desensitize viewers,especially younger viewers, to the h-mos-xual lifestyle. The ultimate goal ofh-mos-xual activists is h-mos-xual marriage.http://www.afa.net/pg050508.htm

First...did you notice something? The man cannot bring himself to spell out h-o-m-o-s-e-x-u-a-l, let alone g-a-y.

And NoNeck should not be worried about That Kiss destroying The Very Fiber of American Society, considering that the decades-old soap has been on life-support for years.

In fact, this act continues to show that Donald Wildmon is the hetrosexual equivelant of the worst kind of homosexual: the just-out flamer who wants to make sure everyone knows his orientation, whether they care or not....and most don't. Just like almost every windmill he has tilted, most of them would have quietly dissapeared anyway had they just been left alone. But just like the proverbial scab, Wildmon has to pick on it, making it seem worse than it really is.

I would like to say that it is fun to chart Wildmon's decent into irrelevance, it that fall is more sad and pitiful than anything else. Donald Wildmon simply wants a world that never exsisted anyway. Wildmon eventually has to acknowledge what many evangelicals are now just coming to grips with: the fact that there are gays and lesbians and bisexuals and transgenders and non-Christians in this world, and if you ever want to have any chance of winning thier souls, you have to know that things like passion and horniness are inventions of God, too.

Wednesday, May 07, 2008

Incest Dad: 'I Am Not a Monster'

Austrian Father Breaks His Silence, Criticizes Media for Dubbing Him a Monster

Josef Fritzl, the Austrian man who fathered seven children with his daughter while keeping her imprisoned in a windowless dungeon in his cellar, has complained about poor media coverage of the case.

His criticism of the international media's reporting was published in the German tabloid Bild Zeitung.

"I could have killed them all," reads the front page headline of today's Bild Zeitung. And Fritzl, dubbed a monster by the Austrian media, told his lawyer, Rudolf Mayer, "I'm not a monster," according to today's report.

Fritzl is sharing his prison cell with another man who is serving time for taking part in a shooting incident. The men have a TV set and a radio available to them in their cell.

Fritz's lawyer has been seeing him and, according to Bild Zeitung, his client has complained to the lawyer that media coverage has been "unfair" and "completely one-sided."

"I could have killed them all, and no one would ever have known, no one would ever have found out," he reportedly told his lawyer.

Fritzl has confessed to locking up his daughter for almost 24 years, and fathering seven children with her during that time.

Three of those children, Kerstin, 19, Stefan, 18, and Felix, 5, had never seen sunlight until they were released from their captivity by police last month after Kerstin became seriously ill and was taken to hospital for a life-threatening disease. The young woman has since remained in a medically induced coma and is said to be in critical condition.

"If it wasn't for me, Kerstin would not be alive today," Fritzl is quoted by his lawyer as saying. "It was me who made sure she was taken to hospital."

Fritzl was questioned by a state prosecutor for the first time today.

"The hearing, which lasted for about 2 hours, mainly focused on the basic details of Mr. Fritzl and his family's background, as is required by Austrian Law," prosecution spokesman Gerhard Sedlacek told reporters. "Mr. Fritzl has told the prosecutor in charge that he's now willing to cooperate with the prosecution."

Fritzl's lawyer, Mayer, had previously said that his client was "emotionally a broken man, who does not belong in a prison, but rather in a closed psychiatric hospital."

He also claimed that it would be impossible for his client to get a fair trial in front of a jury, given the media coverage and the publicity the case has generated worldwide.

The lawyer, who has received plenty of hate mail since he took the case, told reporters in Vienna that he was trying to get a certificate of insanity for his client, in order to be able to declare him unfit to stand trial.

Meanwhile, the case has reached the Austrian Parliament, where members are debating today on whether to introduce lengthier prison sentences for sex offenders and whether to change the existing laws to allow criminal records to be kept for a longer period. Under current laws, files on sex offenses are removed from the records after 15 years.

The move comes after the revelation that Fritzl had previously served 18 months in jail for a rape conviction but was nevertheless awarded care of three infants thought to have been found on the Fritzls' doorstep.

In fact, these were three of the children born out of his incestuous relationship with his daughter, who were allowed to grow up in the care of their grandparents upstairs while their siblings were suffering in captivity with their mother in the secret dungeon in the basement.

My take: I have always said that rape is rape. There are loving relationships between relatives. And thetre is this, as cold-blooded as evil as possible. There are few people on this planet that I would call truly as monster. This piece of dung fits the bill

Monday, May 05, 2008

Doctors know some patients needing lifesaving care won't get it in a flu pandemic or other disaster. The gut-wrenching dilemma will be deciding who to let die.

Now, an influential group of physicians has drafted a grimly specific list of recommendations for which patients wouldn't be treated. They include the very elderly, seriously hurt trauma victims, severely burned patients and those with severe dementia.

The suggested list was compiled by a task force whose members come from prestigious universities, medical groups, the military and government agencies. They include the Department of Homeland Security, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Health and Human Services.

The proposed guidelines are designed to be a blueprint for hospitals "so that everybody will be thinking in the same way" when pandemic flu or another widespread health care disaster hits, said Dr. Asha Devereaux. She is a critical care specialist in San Diego and lead writer of the task force report.

The idea is to try to make sure that scarce resources — including ventilators, medicine and doctors and nurses — are used in a uniform, objective way, task force members said.

Their recommendations appear in a report appearing Monday in the May edition of Chest, the medical journal of the American College of Chest Physicians.

"If a mass casualty critical care event were to occur tomorrow, many people with clinical conditions that are survivable under usual health care system conditions may have to forgo life-sustaining interventions owing to deficiencies in supply or staffing," the report states.

To prepare, hospitals should designate a triage team with the Godlike task of deciding who will and who won't get lifesaving care, the task force wrote. Those out of luck are the people at high risk of death and a slim chance of long-term survival. But the recommendations get much more specific, and include:

_People older than 85.

_Those with severe trauma, which could include critical injuries from car crashes and shootings.

_Severely burned patients older than 60.

_Those with severe mental impairment, which could include advanced Alzheimer's disease.(pb: could this also include people who may be thought impared because if thier inability to conform to societal norms?)

Dr. Kevin Yeskey, director of the preparedness and emergency operations office at the Department of Health and Human Services, was on the task force. He said the report would be among many the agency reviews as part of preparedness efforts.

Public health law expert Lawrence Gostin of Georgetown University called the report an important initiative but also "a political minefield and a legal minefield."

The recommendations would probably violate federal laws against age discrimination and disability discrimination, said Gostin, who was not on the task force.

If followed to a tee, such rules could exclude care for the poorest, most disadvantaged citizens who suffer disproportionately from chronic disease and disability, he said. While health care rationing will be necessary in a mass disaster, "there are some real ethical concerns here."

James Bentley, a senior vice president at American Hospital Association, said the report will give guidance to hospitals in shaping their own preparedness plans even if they don't follow all the suggestions.

He said the proposals resemble a battlefield approach in which limited health care resources are reserved for those most likely to survive.

Bentley said it's not the first time this type of approach has been recommended for a catastrophic pandemic, but that "this is the most detailed one I have seen from a professional group."

While the notion of rationing health care is unpleasant, the report could help the public understand that it will be necessary, Bentley said.

Devereaux said compiling the list "was emotionally difficult for everyone."

That's partly because members believe it's just a matter of time before such a health care disaster hits, she said.

"You never know," Devereaux said. "SARS took a lot of folks by surprise. We didn't even know it existed."

Friday, May 02, 2008

"Rape, beating, maiming, disfigurement and more than likely murder disguised in the form of just another jailhouse accident or suicide would await me," Palfrey wrote - Time Magazine curiously quick to re-affirm suicide story....

Click here to listen to Palfrey clearly state that she would not commit suicide.DC Madam Deborah Jeane Palfrey predicted she would be "suicided" on several occasions both recently and as far back as 17 years ago - comments that now appear ominous in light of the announcement that the former head of a Washington escort service allegedly killed herself today."If taken into custody, my physical safety and most probably my very life would be jeopardized," she wrote in August 1991 following an attempt to bring her to trial, "Rape, beating, maiming, disfigurement and more than likely murder disguised in the form of just another jailhouse accident or suicide would await me," said Palfrey in a handwritten letter to the judge accusing the San Diego police vice squad of having a vendetta against her.During several recent appearances on The Alex Jones Show, Palfrey also said that she was at risk of being killed and that authorities would make it look like suicide. She made it clear that she was not suicidal and if she was found dead it would be murder.Palfrey had threatened to release the names of well-known clients of her upscale call girl ring in the nation's capitol, and had indicated that Dick Cheney may be one of them."We now know it goes at least as high as a United States Senator," Palfrey told The Alex Jones Show, "I'm hearing rumors now from other people that there are other possibilities in that stratosphere so to speak, on that level.""No I'm not planning to commit suicide," Palfrey told The Alex Jones Show on her last appearance in March, "I'm planning on going into court and defending myself vigorously and exposing the government," she said."Blanche Palfrey had no sign that her daughter was suicidal, and there was no immediate indication that alcohol or drugs were involved, police Capt. Jeffrey Young said," according to an AP report.Click here to listen to Palfrey clearly state that she would not commit suicide.Click here to listen to the entirety of a July 2007 interview with Palfrey.UPDATE: In an almost uncanny development, as soon as this article started to go viral on the Internet, Time Magazine released a story claiming that Palfrey told author Dan Moldea that she would rather commit suicide than go to jail. What a funny coincidence!RELATED: Palfrey Considered Call Girl's "Suicide" Possible MurderFLASHBACK: D.C. Madame: "Big Names" May Be On Client List

Thursday, May 01, 2008

AUSTIN – The state says 41 children from a polygamist sect have suffered broken bones in the past, and it's checking the possibility that young boys were sexually molested.

The disclosures came as Texas' top protective services official briefed lawmakers Wednesday on the biggest removal of children in state history. CPS has said it removed 463 children from the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints' ranch because the sect arranged "spiritual marriages" between underage girls and older men.

Medical exams and medical record reviews for the youngsters showed dozens with previous bone breaks or fractures, said Carey Cockerell, head of the Department of Family and Protective Services, parent agency of Child Protective Services.

"Several of these fractures have been found in very young children, and several have multiple fractures," Mr. Cockerell told a Senate panel.

He didn't elaborate. CPS spokesman Patrick Crimmins said the agency doesn't know at what ages the bone breaks occurred, what types of bones were broken or how many children had multiple breaks.

While physical injuries can be an indicator of abuse, checks by The Dallas Morning News suggested broken bones for 9 percent of a group of rural children is not out of line.

According to the Web site of the Seattle Children's Hospital, about half of all boys and a quarter of all girls break a bone sometime during childhood. In 2001, about 16 percent of youngsters under 20 living on farms suffered an injury – the most common being broken bones, a federal study says.

The department said on its Web site on Wednesday that it does "not have X-rays or complete medical information on many children so it is too early to draw any conclusions based on this information."

Mr. Cockerell also offered few details about the possible sexual abuse of boys taken from the Yearning for Zion Ranch in Eldorado.

"We are also following up on discussions with young boys regarding outcries of sexual abuse," he testified.

CPS' Web site said the agency is checking out the possibility "based on interviews with the children and journal entries found at the ranch."

Mr. Crimmins said he doesn't know how many boys may have been molested.

Willie Jessop, a de facto spokesman for the polygamist ranch, called the testimony about broken bones outrageous. Certainly, there are children who have had broken legs and arms, he said – including one recently in a CPS shelter.

"The picture they're painting is very misleading," Mr. Jessop said. "It's ironic that CPS is jumping up and down against us when the most current broken bone was under their care."

He called the state's suggestion of sexual abuse of boys "completely unfounded."

"If there was an isolated allegation of abuse with a boy – and I'm certainly not saying there was – how would you like to have your community, your subdivision, your town painted with that broad brush?" Mr. Jessop said.

CPS officials also accused sect members of deliberately thwarting their investigation by altering identifying wristbands and providing false information while the children and scores of adult women were housed in shelters the state set up in San Angelo.

"Women switched children and even their clothes and clothes of their children," Mr. Cockerell said. "When asked, women and children would change their names and ages."

Mr. Jessop said the women weren't being deceitful. Many have legal surnames that differ from their marital surnames used at the ranch, he said. He said they wouldn't lie intentionally because that could lead to losing their children.

Senate Health and Human Services Committee Chairwoman Jane Nelson, R-Flower Mound, said she wasn't satisfied with Mr. Cockerell's explanation of how CPS will manage the sudden surge in cases. Ms. Nelson made him send her a written response late Wednesday.

Mr. Cockerell said CPS will need 42 additional caseworkers to handle the children, and more lawyers and "certain specialists." He didn't specify any costs. The foster system had some slack and easily absorbed the youngsters, he said.

AUSTIN – The state says 41 children from a polygamist sect have suffered broken bones in the past, and it's checking the possibility that young boys were sexually molested.

The disclosures came as Texas' top protective services official briefed lawmakers Wednesday on the biggest removal of children in state history. CPS has said it removed 463 children from the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints' ranch because the sect arranged "spiritual marriages" between underage girls and older men.

Medical exams and medical record reviews for the youngsters showed dozens with previous bone breaks or fractures, said Carey Cockerell, head of the Department of Family and Protective Services, parent agency of Child Protective Services.

"Several of these fractures have been found in very young children, and several have multiple fractures," Mr. Cockerell told a Senate panel.

He didn't elaborate. CPS spokesman Patrick Crimmins said the agency doesn't know at what ages the bone breaks occurred, what types of bones were broken or how many children had multiple breaks.

While physical injuries can be an indicator of abuse, checks by The Dallas Morning News suggested broken bones for 9 percent of a group of rural children is not out of line.

According to the Web site of the Seattle Children's Hospital, about half of all boys and a quarter of all girls break a bone sometime during childhood. In 2001, about 16 percent of youngsters under 20 living on farms suffered an injury – the most common being broken bones, a federal study says.

The department said on its Web site on Wednesday that it does "not have X-rays or complete medical information on many children so it is too early to draw any conclusions based on this information."

Mr. Cockerell also offered few details about the possible sexual abuse of boys taken from the Yearning for Zion Ranch in Eldorado.

"We are also following up on discussions with young boys regarding outcries of sexual abuse," he testified.

CPS' Web site said the agency is checking out the possibility "based on interviews with the children and journal entries found at the ranch."

Mr. Crimmins said he doesn't know how many boys may have been molested.

Willie Jessop, a de facto spokesman for the polygamist ranch, called the testimony about broken bones outrageous. Certainly, there are children who have had broken legs and arms, he said – including one recently in a CPS shelter.

"The picture they're painting is very misleading," Mr. Jessop said. "It's ironic that CPS is jumping up and down against us when the most current broken bone was under their care."

He called the state's suggestion of sexual abuse of boys "completely unfounded."

"If there was an isolated allegation of abuse with a boy – and I'm certainly not saying there was – how would you like to have your community, your subdivision, your town painted with that broad brush?" Mr. Jessop said.

CPS officials also accused sect members of deliberately thwarting their investigation by altering identifying wristbands and providing false information while the children and scores of adult women were housed in shelters the state set up in San Angelo.

"Women switched children and even their clothes and clothes of their children," Mr. Cockerell said. "When asked, women and children would change their names and ages."

Mr. Jessop said the women weren't being deceitful. Many have legal surnames that differ from their marital surnames used at the ranch, he said. He said they wouldn't lie intentionally because that could lead to losing their children.

Senate Health and Human Services Committee Chairwoman Jane Nelson, R-Flower Mound, said she wasn't satisfied with Mr. Cockerell's explanation of how CPS will manage the sudden surge in cases. Ms. Nelson made him send her a written response late Wednesday.

Mr. Cockerell said CPS will need 42 additional caseworkers to handle the children, and more lawyers and "certain specialists." He didn't specify any costs. The foster system had some slack and easily absorbed the youngsters, he said.

Florida police are investigating the apparent suicide of a woman they believe to be the so-called D.C. Madam, who was found dead in the Florida mobile home of the madam Deborah Jeane Palfrey's mother Thursday.

Local police responding to a call discovered the woman's body in a storage shed to the side of the home, according to a statement released by the Tarpon Springs, Fla., Police. Hand-written notes were found nearby which "describes the victim's intention to take her life," according to the statement.

Foul play does not appear to have been involved, according to the police. They did not immediately release the contents of the notes.

Palfrey was recently convicted on federal charges stemming from operating a prostitution service in the Washington, D.C., area with a number of high-profile clients.

A jury in Washington, D.C. found Palfrey guilty of money laundering, racketeering and using the mail for illegal purposes in connection with a prostitution ring she ran from 1993 to 2006.

Several well-known men were reportedly clients of her service, including former U.S. Agency for International Development chief Randall Tobias and Sen. David Vitter, R-La.

In an interview last year, Palfrey vowed to fight the federal prosecutors who brought the charges against her. "They just destroy you on every level, financially, emotionally, psychologically," she said, but still she refused to accept any deal they offered.

"I sure as heck am not going to be going to federal prison for one day, let alone, you know, four to eight years," Palfrey said.

Polybi's Point: There are two ways to look at this....society always finds a way to strap you back into line, even if they have to force you to remove yourself from it. The other, probably obvious, is that if one does not remove the more dangerous to the status quo themselves, they may need a little help in doing so.

It may be no coincidence that a lot of people are breathing easier this afternoon because of this, hoping that her secrets died with her. Then again, maybe they didn't. We have to soon see.

One thing, though. Between this, and the Texas child abductions, and a lot of other things, those who maintain the status quo will do whatever it takes to maintain it. Anything.